Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: H-Man who wrote (124007)	1/27/2001 6:57:19 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Excellent points. I was aware that the Florida Legislature had filed an Amicus Curiae brief, but had not read it, so was not aware that they expressly stated to the US Supreme Court that they wanted the matter to be concluded by December 12, 2000. I did watch the entire proceedings of the special committee and the entire House of Representatives on C-Span, and was aware that this position was taken in their resolutions. As you point out, Gore repeatedly argued in his pleadings and through his counsel that December 12, 2000 was the date that the recount had to be finished. In fact, when Gore sought a mandamus from the Florida Supreme Court against Judge Sanders Sauls to force him to start the recount before he had a hearing, that was the basis of their petition. I would think that principles of estoppel would apply here, that a party who has taken a position in his pleadings during litigation cannot later take a contrary position to the detriment of his opponent. I think the thing that really shocked Gore's supporters was the speed with which the US Supreme Court issued its injunction. I believe that they were hoping for a few more votes in Gore's favor, so as to turn the tide of public opinion in his favor. Remember the hearing before Judge Lewis on Saturday with respect to Gore's supporters leaking purported recount numbers to the press in violation of Judge Lewis's order that this not be done? The injunction came down very shortly after that. I think it is indisputable that if Gore had leaked numbers to the press that suggested that he had pulled ahead, Bush's presidency would have been damaged even worse than it already had been. During the recount proceedings, I repeatedly asked Gore supporters on these threads to tell me and the rest of the thread what standard should be used to review the Votomatic punch cards - and the only thing any of them ever said was "the intent of the voter." I think there is a reason why no Gore supporter came out in favor of the Palm Beach standard - and that is because they knew that Gore could not win under an objective standard. I do, however, sympathize with the Democrats who refuse to acknowledge Bush as their president, because I know a lot of Republicans who refused to acknowledge Clinton as their president. I have a couple of very good friends who used to have a bumper sticker on their vehicles which read "My President Is Charlton Heston."-g-

To: H-Man who wrote (124007)	1/27/2001 11:31:13 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

H-man, thanks for the thoughtful response to the "Gore Exception" Q&A. I think your tone is harsh, though. I would say the "Gore Exception" piece was written by a very angry lawyer rather than a liar. I do think you skirted round answering a couple of the strongest points in the piece, so I am asking for clarification. First, is it not reasonable to believe that if the FSC set a recount standard that would pass equal protection muster, it would be overturned as writing law from the bench? The statutory standard was "clear intent of the voter", no more. The right of interpretation was clearly given to the canvassing boards, not a court. Particularly in light of the Supreme Court's language in its earlier remand, is it not fair to believe that the FSC was in a Catch-22? That they could set no standard that would not be overturned? Second, the Supreme Court chose to regard December 12th as binding in deference to the Florida legislature. But that does not in itself say that they could not have chosen a later date if they thought there was an imperative reason. Did the Supreme Court have the authority to set, say, December 17th as the date? Third, is it not the usual policy of the Supreme Court to defer to state courts in matters of state law, even if they disagree with them? Fourth, if you take "good only in present circumstances" to mean 'when conducting hand recounts', doesn't this decision raise the equal protection requirements for recounts higher than the equal protection rights for original vote counts? In effect, couldn't you argue that it set the equal protection rights of ballots higher than the equal protection rights of voters? By implication, don't election laws need to be examined to be brought in line with this decision, as the Georgia lawsuit alleges?. Thanks in advance for your answer.